IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 1
When a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States or the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals is received in the District Clerk’s office indicating the affirmance of all or a portion of
a judgment and sentence of conviction, the District Clerk shall comply with the following
procedures:
(A) In all cases where the sentence affirmed requires imprisonment of the defendant, the
Clerk is authorized and directed to enter an order (pursuant to this General Order) directing the
surrender of the defendant to the United States Marshal. The Clerk is given the authority to order
the surrender forthwith or, for good cause, to grant an extension not to exceed fourteen (14) days
from the date his office receives the mandate, provided, however, that for mandates received on or
after December 1 of a given calendar year and before and including December 24, the Clerk shall
order the surrender of the defendant to the United States Marshal on the first business day of the
Marshal=s office after January 1 of the next calendar year. A form order will suffice, such as the
copy attached hereto. A copy of the order shall, immediately after entry thereof, be delivered to
the United States Marshal=s office.
(B) Where the sentence affirmed requires no imprisonment, but requires a period of
probation and/or a fine, the District Clerk will advise the Probation Office of the receipt of the
mandate by an appropriate notice, which may be in the form of the notice attached hereto. This
notice may be mailed or delivered to the United States Probation Office.
1
The order or notice required of the Clerk by this General Order shall be entered or given
by the Clerk not later than the next working day after the receipt of the mandate. Copies of the
order or notice required will also be forwarded forthwith to the United States Attorney=s Office, to
the defendant=s attorney, and to the bondsman for the defendant, if any, by regular mail.
ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1978.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
GARNETT THOMAS EISELE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
/s/ Oren Harris
OREN HARRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Amended November 10, 2009
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
(Style of Criminal Case)
ORDER TO SURRENDER
The judgment and sentence of the Court requiring the imprisonment of the defendant(s)
having been affirmed and the mandate of the appellate court having been received in the Clerk=s
office for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
It is hereby Ordered, pursuant to the General Order of this Court dated the 12th day of June,
1975, that the defendant(s) surrender to the custody of the United States Marshal by presenting
himself at the office of the United States Marshal, Room 416, United States Post Office and Court
House, Little Rock, Arkansas, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on the ____ day of
__________, 19___.
Entered this _____ day of __________, 19___.
FOR THE COURT
______________________________
United States District Clerk
(Alternative)
3
(Style of Criminal Case)
ORDER TO SURRENDER
The judgment and sentence of the Court requiring the imprisonment of the defendant(s)
having been affirmed and the mandate of the appellate court having been received in the Clerk=s
office for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
It is hereby Ordered, pursuant to the General Order of this Court dated the 12th day of June,
1975, that the defendant(s) surrender forthwith to the United States Marshal at Room 416, United
States Post Office and Court House, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Entered this _____ day of __________, 19___.
FOR THE COURT
_______________________________
United States District Clerk
4
(To the United States Probation Office)
NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF MANDATE
On the ______ day of ________________, 19___, the Clerk=s office for the Eastern District
of Arkansas received the mandate from the appellate court affirming a judgment and sentence of
conviction requiring the defendant to serve a period of probation and/or to pay a fine.
You are hereby notified to take jurisdiction of the case for the purpose of carrying out the
sentence of the Court.
Dated this _____ day of __________, 19___.
___________________________
United States District Clerk
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
GENERAL ORDER NO. 15
The judges of this Court hereby adopt the attached Student Practice Rule for the Eastern
District of Arkansas
DATED this 16th day of May, 1980.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
GARNETT THOMAS EISELE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
STUDENT PRACTICE RULE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
A. Admission and Representation
Any eligible law student in a law school accredited by the Arkansas Bar
Association may, under the conditions stated herein, interview and advise
clients, prepare documents for filing with the Court, negotiate, and appear before
any magistrate or district court judge in this district.
B. Eligibility
For a student to be eligible to practice under this Rule, the following
requirements must be met:
1. The conduct of the case must be under the supervision of a member of
the bar of this Court;
a. All documents prepared by the student and filed with the Court
shall be signed by the student and the supervising attorney.
b. When a student appears at the taking of an oral deposition, the
supervising attorney must be present.
c. The supervising attorney must be present with and prepared to
assist the student at any court appearance.
d. The supervising attorney must assume full professional
responsibility for the student=s work.
2. The student must be in his or her final two semesters of law school.
3. No fee may be charged or collected from any person for the student=s
representation. This does not bar any legal aid organization or any lawyer
from compensating the student for services rendered.
4. Written consent must be given by the supervising attorney and by the
client for the student to be eligible to practice under this Rule.
C. Certification
Certification of a student by a law school shall be filed with the clerk of the
Court, attesting that the student is in the final two semesters of law school.
Upon the filing of said certification, the student shall be authorized to practice
pursuant to this Rule.
D. Termination
Certification shall terminate if the student does not take the first bar examination
following his or her graduation, or if he or she fails it, or if he or she is admitted
to full practice before the Court. Otherwise, unless sooner withdrawn by the
dean or terminated by a judge of this Court, the certification shall remain in effect
for twelve months after the date filed or unless, upon application by the dean of
the law school, the Chief Judge of the district shall extend the privilege. The
law school may withdraw the certification at any time by submitting a notice to
that effect to the clerk of the Court. It is not necessary that the notice state the
cause for the withdrawal. Any judge of this Court may terminate the admission
to limited practice at any time without notice or hearing of showing of cause.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE MAGISTRATE DUTIES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES
GENERAL ORDER NO. 17
Under the Rules of this Court, the full-time United States Magistrates of this district are
authorized to conduct debtor examinations. On occasion, persons who have been summoned to
appear at such examinations fail to do so, and it appears that there is a need to direct such persons
to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.
THEREFORE, the Court hereby authorizes the full-time Magistrates of this district to issue
show cause orders, conduct necessary hearings on such matters, and to report and recommend to
the District Court the action they feel should be taken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 24th day of February, 1981.
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
GARNETT THOMAS EISELE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF ARKANSAS
IN RE FULL-TIME UNITED STATES MAGISTRATES
GENERAL ORDER NO. 19
Pursuant to the authorization of the Judicial Conference of the United States at its
September, 1980, meeting, the full-time United States magistrates in both the Eastern and Western
Districts of Arkansas are hereby authorized to perform the duties of a magistrate in either district
of the state.
DATED this 21st day of August, 1981.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
Garnett Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge
Eastern District of Arkansas
/s/ Paul X. Williams
Paul X. Williams, Chief Judge
Western District of Arkansas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
4.+ '---
ORDER AMENDING FORFEITURE OF COLLATERAL SCHEDULES
Effective this date, Schedule D of General Order No. 20, referencing Title 36, Section
327.2b, "Parking vehicles in violation of posted restrictions" is amended by substituting
"$1 5.00" for "$75.00" and Schedule E of General Order No. 20 is no longer in effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ?? D day of August, 2005.
FOR THE COURT:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORFEITURE OF COLLATERAL SCHEDULE
for the
EASTERN COURT DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CODE VIOLATION FINE
327.1(d) Discriminating against a person or Mandatory
persons because of sex, race, Appearance
creed, color, or national origin in
the conduct of operation under a
Lease, License, or concession con-
tract
327.2(b) Parking a vehicle inviolation of $15.00
Posted restrictions
327.2 (b) Parking a vehicle in such a manner $50.00
As to obstruct or impede the move-
ment of normal traffic or the park-
ing of other vehicles
327.2(b) Parking a vehicle in such a manner $100.00
as to obstruct or impede the move-
ment of emergency traffic, create a
safety hazard or endanger any per-
son
327.2(b) Parking a vehicle in such a manner $75.00
as to endanger project property or
Environmental feature
327.2(c) Operation and/or parking of a vehi- $100.00
cle off authorized roadways except
at locations and time designated by
the District Engineer
327.2Cc) Taking any vehicle through, around, $125.00
or beyond a restrictive sign, rec-
ognizable barricade, fence, or
traffic control barrier
327.2(d) Operating a vehicle in violation of $50.00
posted regulations
327 - 2(e) Operating a vehicle in a careless, $150.00
negligent, or reckless manner so as
to endanger environmental features
or project property
327.2(e) Operating a vehicle in a careless, $200.00
negligent, or reckless manner so as
to endanger any person
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANTS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 22
Because there is a compelling interest in protecting from public disclosure all search or
seizure warrant-related documents until the warrant is executed or becomes un executable and
because no less restrictive alternative is practical to protect that interest, the issuing District or
Magistrate Judge must maintain the confidentiality of all warrant-related documents until they are
delivered to the Clerk for filing. Upon receipt of the return inventory on an executed warrant, or
upon expiration of the time specified in the warrant for its execution, the Judge must deliver all
warrant-related papers to the Clerk of Court for filing in a miscellaneous warrant file.
In order to request that the Judge seal some or all of the documents in any miscellaneous
warrant file, the United States Attorney must submit an ex parte motion to seal, along with a
proposed Order granting that motion. This motion must state reasonably specific facts which
establish that: (a) the government has a compelling interest in sealing the documents in question
which outweighs the public=s qualified first amendment right of access to review those documents;
and (b) no less restrictive alternative to sealing is appropriate or practical. Ordinarily, such a
motion must be filed at the time of application for the warrant. If grounds to seal arise after
the warrant has been issued, the United States may, within seven days after the Clerk has filed the
warrant papers, submit an ex parte motion to seal and a proposed order. The motion must
establish, in addition to the above grounds, that the basis for sealing was not known at the time of
the warrant application, despite due diligence.
Because there may be cases in which a person=s or other entity=s privacy interests rise to
the level of a compelling interest sufficient to justify sealing documents in a warrant file, such
persons or entities may file a motion to seal, ex parte, within seven days after the Clerk has filed
the warrant papers.
If no motion to seal has been filed within seven days after the Clerk has filed the warrant
papers, the Clerk must open the file to the public for inspection and copying. If a motion to seal
is filed, the miscellaneous warrant file must remain sealed until the Judge has ruled on the motion.
The Judge must rule on any motion to seal within seven days after the motion is filed. If a motion
to seal is denied, the miscellaneous warrant file must remain sealed during the period in which an
appeal may be filed.
When the Judge delivers the warrant papers to the Clerk for filing, the Clerk must create
and maintain a separate miscellaneous file which must contain the application for the warrant, all
supporting affidavits and any return inventory, related motions or orders. The Clerk must also
create and maintain a docket sheet, open to the public for inspection and copying, for every
miscellaneous warrant file, including files in which an order to seal has been entered. The docket
sheet must contain docket entries that describe generally each document in the file and reflect the
number of pages of each such document. If the Judge enters an order granting a motion to seal,
the Clerk must maintain all documents within the scope of the order to seal in a sealed
miscellaneous file.
Any person or other entity seeking to challenge the grounds supporting an order to seal
documents contained in a miscellaneous warrant file must submit a motion, directed to the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge who signed the warrant, stating specific grounds supporting the
release of the sealed documents. In opposing such a motion, the party who obtained the order to
-2-
seal has the burden of establishing that a compelling interest justifies a restriction of the public=s
qualified first amendment right of access to the documents in question and that no less restrictive
alternative to sealing is appropriate or practical. In appropriate cases, the Judge may conduct an
in camera hearing to develop the facts necessary to determine whether a compelling interest
justifies sealing the documents in question. If the Judge concludes that the documents should
remain under seal, the Judge will enter an order under seal containing specific findings that explain
why sealing is necessary and why no less restrictive alternatives are practical or appropriate. The
Clerk must open any sealed miscellaneous warrant file after a related indictment or information is
filed.
DATED this 20th day of September, 2001.
/s/ Susan Webber Wright
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Amended November 10, 2009
Amended June 1, 2010
-3-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF FILING OF CIVIL RIGHTS
CASES UNDER TITLE VII (42 USC 2000e)
GENERAL ORDER NO. 29
The recent Supreme Court decision in Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown
prohibits the tolling of the time for filing the Complaint in a Title VII (42:2000e) case upon the
filing of the right-to-sue letter. This Court has experienced some procedural problems in the
expeditious filing of these cases since the plaintiff usually waits until the deadline approaches to
bring in his right-to-sue letter, and normally has a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP)
attached to the letter. Unless the Court gives an immediate ruling on the Motion to Proceed IFP,
the 90-day time limit will expire, thus denying plaintiff his day in court.
In order to more expeditiously process these Title VII (42:2000e) cases through the filing
stage, the Court hereby adopts the following procedures:
A. WHEN THE RIGHT-TO-SUE LETTER IS BROUGHT IN PERSONALLY BY
PLAINTIFF:
1. The Clerk will inquire if plaintiff desires to proceed IFP and desires to have
counsel appointed.
2. If answered affirmatively, the Clerk will provide plaintiff with the necessary
forms for requesting leave to proceed IFP and the support affidavit. If
plaintiff desires the Court to appoint counsel that form will also be provided.
3. A form of Complaint under Title VII will be furnished to plaintiff who will
complete the form and return it to the Clerk immediately. The right-to-sue
letter is to be attached to the Complaint.
4. The Clerk is hereby given authority to approve the petition to proceed as a
pauper, and promptly file the Complaint. Upon review of the petition, if it
is determined by the Judge to whom the case is assigned that the plaintiff is
not a pauper and the Complaint was erroneously filed, he/she will notify the
plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee or the Complaint will be dismissed.
5. The assigned Judge will rule on the pending Motion for Appointment of
Counsel.
6. The Clerk=s office should make no effort to determine if the Complaint is
filed within 90 days from receipt of the right-to-sue letter.
7. This procedure eliminates the setting up of a miscellaneous file for this
proceeding.
B. WHEN THE RIGHT-TO-SUE LETTER ONLY IS RECEIVED BY MAIL:
1. The Clerk will file stamp the right-to-sure letter and set up a miscellaneous
case file.
2. The Clerk will promptly (meaning the same day) send to plaintiff the forms
to proceed IFP, request for Appointment of Counsel, and the form for
Complaint. The Clerk shall mail these documents with a transmittal letter
explaining the importance of filing the Complaint within the 90-day time
period, and that plaintiff will be in a danger of losing his right to proceed
under Title VII if the Complaint is not timely filed. A copy of the letter
will be placed in the miscellaneous file.
The Complaint, IFP form, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel should
all be cross-referenced with the miscellaneous case file number in order to
retrieve the right-to-sue letter when the completed forms are returned.
3. Upon receipt of the completed forms set out in paragraph 2 above, the Clerk
and assigned Judge will follow the procedures outlined in paragraph A4
through A6 above.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7th day of January, 1991.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
G. THOMAS EISELE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE
PRACTICE OF EX-LAW CLERKS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 32
General Order No. 31, dated June 6, 1986, is hereby set aside.
Effective the 1st day of July 1985, no person who was employed as a law clerk by and for
any judge of this Court shall, directly or indirectly, participate in any contested proceeding before
that judge for the period of two (2) years after said person=s termination of employment as such
law clerk. This prohibition is also personal to the judge involved and will not disqualify any other
judge of this Court from handling any such matter. The Clerk of this Court will keep a record on
the ex-law clerks of each judge. In the event a contested proceeding participated in by an ex-law
clerk during the prohibited period is, by the draw, assigned to the judge for whom, and under
whose direction, said law clerk previously worked, then that judge will be deemed to have
automatically recused himself or herself, and the Clerk, without further instructions, will redraw
the case until it falls to another non-disqualified judge.
This Order shall also apply to the ex-law clerks of the United States Magistrates except
with regard to routine pre-trial appearances in criminal cases.
Further, this Order shall also apply to the law clerks of United States Bankruptcy Judges
EXCEPT that the prohibited period will be one year rather than two years and EXCEPT that there
shall be no prohibited period for persons whose employment as bankruptcy law clerks terminated
prior to the date of this Order or to those persons currently employed as bankruptcy law clerks.
The latter exception is provided inasmuch as the bankruptcy law clerks currently employed
accepted their positions when no prohibited period applied in regard to them.
DATED this 25th day of June, 1986. NUNC PRO TUNC July 1, 1985, except in regard
to law clerks for United States Bankruptcy Judges as set forth above.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Garnett Thomas Eisele
G. THOMAS EISELE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZATION
FOR PRETRIAL SERVICES TO CONDUCT
URINALYSES IN CONNECTION WITH
PRETRIAL SERVICES INVESTIGATIONS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 37
Section 7304 of the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4464
(November 18, 1988)) created a two year demonstration drug testing program, requiring, inter alia,
drug testing of criminal defendants to be completed, where feasible, prior to the defendants=
appearance before judicial officers. The Eastern District of Arkansas was selected by the Judicial
Conference as one of the eight districts to participate in the program.
That pilot program commenced on January 1, 1989, and terminated by operation of the
statute on December 31, 1990. The Court has been advised, however, that the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts will provide funding to test criminal defendants prior to their
initial appearances for those demonstration districts that choose to continue the program pending
congressional action on a permanent and national testing program.
The Court has considered its experience with the pretrial drug testing pilot program over
the two years of its operation and finds that the program has resulted in the judicial officers of this
district receiving important, relevant, and timely information that permitted those officers to make
more informed pretrial release decisions under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 3142.
The program=s operation has not only resulted in more informed pretrial release decisions
but has also made the identification of defendants with special problems possible. In many
instances it has resulted in much needed help for defendants who want it.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Probation Office for the Eastern District of
Arkansas be, and it is hereby, authorized to continue performing urinalyses for criminal defendants
accused of drug manufacture, possession, or distribution prior to their initial appearance before the
judicial officers of this district and that the results of those tests be included in the pretrial services
report presented to those officers. In all other cases, a pretrial services officer shall contact the
duty magistrate judge to determine whether the defendant shall be tested.
DATED this 13th day of November, 1991.
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
U. S. DISTRICT COURT
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED
U.S. CISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF IMPLEMENTATION AUG 2 0 2025
OF LOCAL RULE 40.1 ON CASE ASSIGNMENTS
IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
AMENDED GENERAL ORDER NO. 39
(a) All actions and proceedings shall be assigned by a random selection process, except
as specifically set out in sections (d) and (t) ofthis General Order.
(b) The clerk will perform the random selection process using a percentage draw for
each district judge, except as specifically set out in section (c). From time to time, and without
regard to any particular action or proceeding, the Court will set each district judge' s percentage
draw for new matters filed in each division. The Court will consider all material circumstances
when setting the percentage draw, including but not limited to the following: status (active or
senior); duty station; administrative responsibilities; case type; and case weight.
(c) The clerk will make random, district-wide assignments, with equal participation by
all district judges, in:
(1) civil actions seeking to bar or mandate statewide enforcement of a state law,
including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or a
state agency, whether by declaratory judgment, any form of injunctive
relief, or both; and
(2) civil actions seeking to bar or mandate nationwide enforcement of a federal
law, including a rule, regulation, policy, or order of the executive branch or
a federal agency, whether by declaratory judgment, any form of injunctive
relief, or both.
If the filing party seeks relief under subsection (1) or (2) above, the JS-44 civil cover sheet should
note that the case seeks to bar or mandate statewide or nationwide enforcement of a state or federal
law.
(d) Civil cases shall be assigned directly to a particular judge only in the following
circumstances:
(1) Voluntary Nonsuit. When the plaintiff takes a voluntary nonsuit in a
case and later refiles that same case, the clerk will assign it to the judge who
handled it at the time of the entry of the nonsuit order. The complaint in
the refiled case shall contain a brief paragraph identifying, by style and case
number, the former proceedings in which the voluntary nonsuit was entered
and the name of the judge handling the case when the voluntary nonsuit
order was entered.
(2) Bankruptcy Cases. When the randomly drawn district judge determines that
a bankruptcy matter should proceed as a civil action, the clerk will assign
the civil action directly to the district judge who made the determination.
(3) Habeas Corpus Petitions. Once a habeas corpus petition has been randomly
assigned, all successive petitions emanating from the same state criminal
proceeding on which the first petition was based shall be assigned directly
to the district judge/magistrate judge who handled the first petition.
(4) Civil Cases Attacking Federal Sentence. Civil cases, filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 , attacking a sentence imposed by a federal court shall be assigned
directly to the sentencing judge in the criminal case.
(5) Related Cases. There may be rare situations in which a party believes a
new civil case should be directly assigned to a particular judge because the
new case is closely related to a pending case or a closed case and the
assignment thereof to a different judge would result in a significant waste
of judicial time. If a plaintiff believes judicial economy requires such a
direct assignment, the plaintiff should so indicate by a separate filing
entitled "Notice of Related Case" to be filed contemporaneously with the
complaint and served with the complaint upon the defendant(s). If a party
other than the plaintiff believes a new case should be directly assigned to a
judge who is handling a pending closely related case or who handled a prior
closely related case, that party should file a "Notice of Related Case" with
its first pleading and serve a copy thereof on all other parties. When any
party who initiates a case files a "Notice of Related Case," the new case
shall be tentatively assigned to the judge who is handling the pending case
or who handled the prior case.
The "Notice of Related Case" shall identify, by style and case number, the
pending or closed case and shall contain a brief statement setting out why
judicial economy dictates direct assignment to a particular judge. Each
adverse party shall have fourteen days after receiving the ''Notice of Related
2
Case" within which to file a brief statement opposing this related-case
assignment. The judge, exercising discretion and through written order,
may shorten or extend the time for filing a response to the "Notice of
Related Case."
After reviewing the cases and the submissions of the parties to determine
whether the cases are closely related and whether this non-random
assignment is likely to result in significant savings of judicial resources, the
judge assigned the new case may, in his or her sole discretion, decide either
to keep the new case or to notify the clerk to assign the new case by random
draw. The decision of the judge is final and not subject to review.
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court may on its own motion note
closely related cases and tentatively reassign them to the judge who is
handling the first-filed pending case or who handled the first-filed closed
case. The clerk will notify the affected parties in any pending case of this
action. Within fourteen days of this notice, any party may submit a filing
stating the party' s views on the reassignment. The judge, exercising
discretion and through written order, may shorten or extend the time for a
response to the clerk' s notice. After reviewing the cases and the parties'
submissions to determine whether the cases are closely related and whether
this non-random assignment is likely to result in significant savings of
judicial resources, the judge assigned the new case may, in his or her sole
discretion, decide either to keep the new case or to notify the clerk to
reassign the new case by random draw. The decision of the judge is final
and not subject to review.
In implementing this subsection (d)(S) of this General Order, the clerk will
determine the first-filed case. The clerk must do so by considering the date
and time of filing of all the closely related cases in all three divisions. The
first-filed case is the earliest case filed irrespective of the case number or
the division.
(6) Civil Forfeiture. When a civil forfeiture action arises out of a previously
filed criminal case, the clerk shall directly assign the civil forfeiture action
to the judge who handled the criminal case.
(e) Consolidation of Civil Cases. Any party to a civil case may move for consolidation
of pending cases. If the motion is granted by each judge presiding in a pending case, the
consolidation cases will be assigned to the judge with the first-filed case. The clerk must consider
the date and time of filing of all cases to be consolidated across all three divisions. The first-filed
case is the earliest case filed irrespective of the case number or division.
3
(t) Criminal Cases. Criminal cases shall be assigned solely on a random selection
basis, except as specifically set out in subsections (t)(l) and (±)(2) of this General Order.
(1) Any party to a criminal case may move for consolidation of pending cases.
If this motion is granted by each judge presiding in a pending case, the
consolidated cases will be assigned to the judge with the first-filed case. The
clerk must consider the date and time of filing of all cases to be consolidated
across all three divisions. The first-filed case is the earliest case filed
irrespective of the case number or division.
(2) When a defendant under supervision in a federal case is indicted on a new
federal charge, if appointed counsel is needed, the same lawyer will be
appointed to represent the defendant in the revocation proceedings and on
the new indictment. To promote judicial economy, the same districtjudge
will preside over all these related cases. The new case resulting from the
new indictment will be assigned to the district judge presiding in the first-
filed case, as defined in subsection (d)(5), if practicable. Otherwise, the
clerk will randomly assign the new case and reassign the older case or cases
to the selected judge. The defendant's initial appearance on the revocation
petition shall be referred to the magistrate judge who presides over the
defendant's initial appearance on the new case resulting from the new
indictment.
The Court on its own may note that a new case resulting from a new
indictment and revocation proceedings are related. Any party to a criminal
case may also submit a filing indicating that a new case resulting from a
new indictment is related to revocation proceedings. This filing shall
identify, by style and case number, the pending or closed case and shall
contain a brief statement setting out why judicial economy supports direct
assignment to a particular judge.
After reviewing the cases and the submission of the parties to determine
whether the cases are closely related and whether this non-random
assignment is likely to result in significant savings of judicial resources, the
judge assigned the new case may, in his or her sole discretion, decide either
to keep the new case or to notify the clerk to assign the new case by random
draw. The decision of the judge is final and not subject to review.
(g) No person shall take any action designed to cause the assignment of any proceeding
to a particular judge contrary to the provisions of this General Order. The method of assignment
shall assure that the identity of the assigned judge will not be disclosed by the clerk, the clerk's
staff, nor by any other person, until after filing. The method of assignment is also designed to
4
prevent any litigant from choosing the judge to whom an action or proceeding is to be assigned.
Any attempt by any attorney to circumvent these assignment rules or to exploit the method of
assignment for the purpose of choosing a presiding judge shall constitute grounds for discipline,
including disbarment. Any act by any employee of this Court done for the purpose of causing the
assignment of any case or proceeding contrary to the provisions of this General Order shall be
considered a proper basis for immediate discharge.
It is hereby ordered this 20th day of August 2025.
KRISTINE G. BAKER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Filed May 4, 2001
Amended November 10, 2009
Amended August 20, 2025
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF PRESENTENCE REPORTS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 43
Pursuant to the authority granted by amended Rule 32(e)(3) (formerly Rule 32(b)(6)(A)),
FRCrP, effective December 1, 1994, the court opts out of the probation officer's recommendation
disclosure provision. Unless otherwise directed by order of a judge of this court, the probation
officer's recommendation, if any, on the sentence shall remain confidential and shall not be
disclosed.
DATED this 19th day of December, 1994, nunc pro tunc December 1, 1994.
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE AUTHORITY
OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES TO CONDUCT
JURY TRIALS IN CERTAIN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 44
It appears to the Court that the "Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994" (H.R. 5116) enacted on
October 22, 1994, amends 28 U.S.C. ' 157 by adding a new subsection (e) to empower a
bankruptcy judge to conduct a jury trial, provided that the bankruptcy judge is specially designated
to exercise such jurisdiction by the District Court and further provided all parties expressly
consent.
Specifically, 28 U.S.C. ' 157(e) provides as follows:
If the right to a jury trial applies in a proceeding that may be heard under this section by a
bankruptcy judge, the bankruptcy judge may conduct the jury trial if specially designated
to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court and with the express consent of all the
parties.
Based on the foregoing, and if the right to a jury trial exists and applies in a civil proceeding
that may be heard under 28 U.S.C. ' 157 by a bankruptcy judge, this Court specially designates
that the bankruptcy judges of this Judicial District may exercise such jurisdiction by the District
Court and conduct jury trials with the express consent of all the parties.
DATED this 13th day of November, 1995.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF RULE F-1 OF
THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN
AND WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 45
The reference of prisoner petitions covered by Rule 72.1 (VIII) (B) (formerly Rule F-1
(VIII) (B) (1)) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts
of Arkansas shall include conditions cases filed by federal prisoners.
DATED this 17th day of December, 1996.
FOR THE COURT:
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE REFUND
OF CASH BONDS RECEIVED IN
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES
GENERAL ORDER NO. 46
The Clerk is authorized, upon the final completion of each case, to refund to the appropriate
party cash bail in criminal matters and cash bonds for costs in civil cases.
It is SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1997.
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF INTERNET POLICY
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 47
The following shall be the Internet policy of this Court:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide guidance for Aacceptable use@
of the Internet by Court employees.
2. SCOPE. This bulletin applies to all Court employees who use the Internet in the
performance of their jobs.
3. RESPONSIBILITY. With the increased use of Internet services throughout the
Judiciary, it is important that these tools are used properly and in the best interests of the
government. Since no two employees will use the Internet in exactly the same way, each user will
have to exercise individual responsibility and judgment as to appropriate use within the broad
guideline of Aofficial business.@ Judicial Officers and Unit Executives are responsible for
determining which of their staff require Internet access to carry out their jobs; providing required
computer systems, software, and security devices; and, training on the proper use of the Internet.
Copies of this Bulletin should be provided to each staff member who either has or requests Internet
access.
4. WHAT USERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT INTERNET AND INTERNET E-MAIL.
The Internet is an informal collection of government, military, commercial, and educational
computer networks. It is essential that users understand some of the limitations of the Internet
and the Internet e-mail system including security and delivery of an e-mail message.
1
The Internet is an unsecured network. As such, information and e-mail on the Internet
can be read, broadcasted, or published without the knowledge or consent of the author. Users
should be aware that cc:Mail is converted to e-mail and may be sent via the Internet.
Consequently, cc:Mail should be treated with the same precautions as e-mail. Most sites maintain
records of all users or entities accessing their resources. These records may be open to inspection
and publication without the user=s knowledge or consent. If the activity of the user is other than
official business, the publication of that activity could prove to be an embarrassment for the Court
and the entire federal Judiciary.
Internet e-mail traffic is subject to inspection by a variety of persons and mechanisms,
authorized and otherwise. Authorized personnel on any node between the origin and destination
of a message may have to inspect message contents in order to dispatch stalled deliveries or resolve
other failures. Users should not expect the messages they send or receive via the Internet to be
private. Delivery and delivery times are not guaranteed due to unpredictable intermediary system
and network outages, slowdowns, and polling intervals, etc. Consequently, users should not rely
on Internet e-mail for time-sensitive communications or guaranteed delivery. Some messages may
not be delivered although the message was correctly addressed. Receipt or non-receipt can only
be confirmed through other positive means, not by inference or assumption. Note: the cc:Mail
AReceipt Requested@ feature may not be honored by systems on the Internet. Users should not
rely on this feature for Internet e-mail.
Delivery and response times on the Internet, as well as the DCN, are determined by traffic
and congestion on the network. For example, sending large files such as digital images to a large
number of recipients will delay other traffic and may overload the system causing failure. Users
are encouraged to use discretion when forwarding large e-mail messages to group addresses or
2
distribution lists. Congestion on the network can be caused by the propagation of Achain letters@
and Abroadcasting@ of lengthy messages to lists or individuals. These uses also place a burden on
the shared data storage device of the e-mail post office.
Internet e-mail access grants users the ability to subscribe to a variety of e-mail news
groups, list servers, and other sources of information. These services are a potentially valuable
information tool for some e-mail users; but again, the potential for network congestion is high.
Users should be cautioned on the widespread use of mailing lists and list servers. In general, low-
volume business related lists will not be a problem.
Users should focus on one subject per message and always include a pertinent subject title
for the message to enable the reader to locate the message quickly. Remember the basic elements
of effective writing: clarity, brevity, and courtesy. Users should be reminded they bear sole
responsibility for material they send, access, or display on the Internet or in Internet e-mail.
5. PROCEDURES. The following procedures should be followed to ensure that
employees use the Internet safely and productively, and that the Internet is not used in any way
that could compromise the interests of the judiciary. These guidelines apply to all Internet
services, including but not limited to: electronic mail (e-mail), Web browsers, Telnet, and File
Transfer Protocol (FTP).
Access to Internet: Employees with a valid need to use the Internet should secure written
approval of their Judicial Officer or Unit Executive by including their name, purpose of Internet
access, estimated hours per month use, and that they understand that access is provided for official
government purposes only. The Judicial Officer or Unit Executive should forward their approval
to the Systems Department for connection. Government-provided Internet access is subject to
being withdrawn at the discretion of the Judicial Officer or Unit Executive.
3
Monitoring: The Systems Department will not monitor the Internet activity log for
compliance with acceptable use policies unless requested by a Judicial Officer or requested by a
Unit Executive and approved by the Chief Judge of the district.
Responsible Internet Policies: The Internet allows employees to have electronic
discussions of official government matters with other federal employees, private sector employees,
and the worldwide general public. The Internet audience is virtually unlimited, and because one
never knows who will read posted messages, care should be taken with what is said and how it is
said. Connection to the Internet offers employees significant benefits in terms of increased access
to information resources. However, connection to the Internet is a privilege and not a right.
When accessing the Internet, employees must adhere to the same code of ethics that
governs all other aspects of judiciary employee activity. Internet activity should not interfere with
performance of official duties. Staff are encouraged to use the Internet to accomplish job
responsibilities, to become more knowledgeable about Internet capabilities, and further the Court’s
mission.
Each Judicial Officer or Unit Executive may permit designated staff to use the Internet on
personal time. Such use provides staff with an opportunity to practice Internet skills and explore
Internet resources. Our Court benefits by permitting staff to use their own time to develop these
skills. In the current environment of shrinking budgets and the need for staff to take on new and
greater responsibilities, and develop new areas of expertise, use of the Internet can be an important
avenue for training and development of skills. Since the Court pays one flat fee for all Internet
access, there is no additional cost for personal use of the Internet.
This policy allowing staff members to use the Internet on personal time is similar to our
existing policy of allowing staff to use library collections and other resources on personal time and
4
has similar benefits. Just as a staff member who takes books home, visits the library, and
participates in court events learns about the institution and acquires skills to become a better
employee, a staff member who makes use of the Internet on personal time enhances his or her
knowledge and skills of electronic information resources and gains skills in information
technology. This use also enhances job-related knowledge and skills and provides cost-effective
self-training opportunities. By encouraging employees to explore the Internet, the Court builds
its pool of Internet-literate staff who can then guide and encourage those around them. With this
in mind, staff is encouraged to use official time to attend meetings and programs related to the
Internet and to serve as trainers for other staff who may wish to use the Internet.
Employees may not use the Internet for prohibited activities. Employees are expressly
forbidden from creating unauthorized satellite home pages or other similar works and are cautioned
to use great care that no statements are made which may appear to express agency policy or
position which are not authorized. Prohibited activities are:
1. making unauthorized statements regarding agency policies or practices;
2. transmitting confidential information (such as that relating to ongoing
investigations, procurements, or litigation);
3. making unauthorized commitments or promises that might be perceived as binding
the government;
4. using subscription accounts or commercial services that are not expressly
authorized;
5. posting an unauthorized home page or similar web site;
6. engaging in chat room discussions through e-mail, etc.;
5
7. sending or displaying messages or pictures that are of an obscene or sexually
explicit nature as defined in Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1972) or Ark. Code Ann.
(1987) '5-68-302(4);
8. using the network connection for commercial purposes or private gain;
9. using the network for illegal activities;
10. unauthorized personal use.
11. Improper use or distribution of information is also prohibited. This includes
copyright violations such as software piracy (Copyright law protects software authors and
publishers just as patent law protects inventors. The Court may incur a legal liability for
unauthorized copying of files or software even if the copy is used for official business).
Employees should show respect for intellectual property and creativity by giving
appropriate credit when files or portions of files are used while carrying out official duties.
Employees should be mindful of procurement sensitive information and should not transmit it over
the Internet.
Judicial Officers, of course, occupy a special position in our system, which position
necessitates that they enjoy the utmost autonomy. This means, by necessity, their Internet access
must be protected by complete confidentiality, as with their research on Westlaw and Lexis. In
order to protect the confidentiality of Internet research by Judicial Officers, no monitoring of
judges= Internet activity shall be attempted by any court employee. Any violation of their rule
shall result in immediate termination from employment.
It is SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 1997.
/s/ Stephen M. Reasoner
STEPHEN M. REASONER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
IN ANCILLARY MATTERS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 49
The following procedures are hereby established to authorize the appointment of the
Federal Public Defender in ancillary matters pursuant to the Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
The Federal Public Defender Office is hereby appointed on ancillary matters appropriate
to the proceedings in which the Federal Public Defender was previously appointed pursuant to an
Order of this CourtBprovided it is apparent to the Federal Public Defender that no change in the
client=s financial condition has occurred which would render the person financially ineligible for
appointment of counsel under the Criminal Justice Act and provided that the matter at hand will
require substantial work by counsel and is significant enough to warrant appointment of counsel.
If at any time during the representation in the ancillary matter, the Federal Public Defender obtains
information that a client is financially able to make payment, in whole or in part, for legal or other
services in connection with the representation, and the course of the information is not protected
as a privileged communication, the Federal Public Defender shall advise the Court.
This General Order shall serve to authorize the Federal Public Defender to provide
assistance of counsel to financially eligible persons in ancillary matters even though the initial
appointment of the Federal Public Defender has otherwise terminated due to the conclusion of the
matter for which the Federal Public Defender was originally appointed. Prior to the appearance
1
in this court or any new matter filed against a Defendant, the Federal Public Defender shall present
to the Court a financial affidavit completed by the client to be represented.
DATED this 10th day of March, 1999.
/s/ Susan Webber Wright
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN RE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
GENERAL ORDER NO. 50
Purpose. In accordance with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas has established an alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) program. This program is designed to afford litigants an opportunity to reach
a satisfactory resolution of disputes before litigation.
The ADR Administrator. The Clerk of Court is appointed AADR Administrator.@ While
attached administratively to the Clerk=s office, the ADR Administrator reports directly to the
Chief Judge of this Court. The ADR Administrator must:
(1) Prepare any applications for funding for the ADR program by the United States
Government and other entities, and prepare reports required by the United States
Government or other parties on the use of funds in the operation and evaluation of
the ADR program;
(2) Develop and maintain such forms, records, docket controls, and data as may be
necessary to administer and evaluate the program, and,
(3) Periodically evaluate the ADR program and submit the resulting evaluation to the
Court, along with any recommendations for changes, if needed.
The ADR Program. On the date of the enactment of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Act of
1998, the Court had an ADR program, the provision of settlement conferences conducted by a
United States Magistrate Judge who has been trained to serve as a neutral in alternative dispute
1
resolution processes. Upon examination and review, the existing program is adopted as the
ADR process of the court.
(1) Exempted cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the following cases are
excluded from the program:
(a) Appeals from rulings of administrative agencies;
(b) Social Security Cases;
(c) Bankruptcy appeals;
(d) Habeas corpus and extraordinary writs; and
(e) Prisoner civil rights cases.
Consideration of the Alternative Dispute Resolution process. Litigants in all civil cases,
except as exempted above, shall consider the use of the Alternative Dispute Resolution process
provided by this Court at an appropriate stage in the litigation.
Procedure:
(1) This district=s United States Magistrate Judges are authorized to conduct
settlement conferences in each civil case other than those cases exempted above.
Such settlement conferences may be conducted if all parties consent to the same,
or if all parties so request and the district judge assigned to the case believes that
such would be useful.
(2) All settlement conferences will be conducted at such times and under the
procedures as may be established by the respective United States Magistrate
Judges.
(3) The rules governing disqualification, as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 455 and Canon 3 of
2
Code of Conduct for the United States Judges, will apply to a Magistrate Judge to
whom a case is referred.
Confidentially. Communications of litigants, attorneys and magistrate judges during the ADR
process are confidential, and disclosure of these communications is prohibited. However, the
magistrate judge shall be permitted to inform the presiding judge and/or Clerk=s office of the
outcome of the process.
Other ADR Processes. The litigants must not be prohibited or discouraged from utilizing other
ADR processes to assist in the resolution of issues in controversy, such as mediation, minitrial,
and arbitration. However, these procedures are not available in this Court’s ADR program.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31ST day of July, 2000.
/s/ Susan Webber Wright
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Amended August 16, 2012
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE
DECEMBER 1, 2000
GENERAL ORDER NO. 51
The Court has determined that the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
which are effective December 1, 2000, should be applied to all cases in which a defendant has not
made an appearance as of December 1, 2000.
This Order supersedes General Order 42 entered February 22, 1994.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2000.
/s/ Susan Webber Wright
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
,17+(81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
)257+(($67(51',675,&72)$5.$16$6
,17+(0$77(52)7+(,03/(0(17$7,21
2)&$6(0$1$*(0(17(/(&7521,&&$6(),/,1* &0(&)
$0(1'('*(1(5$/25'(5
7KH&0(&)$GPLQLVWUDWLYH3ROLFLHVDQG3URFHGXUHV0DQXDOVIRU&LYLODQG&ULPLQDO
)LOLQJVKDYHEHHQDSSURYHGE\WKH&RXUW It isUHFRJQL]HdWKDWWKHVH0DQXDOVPD\UHTXLUH
RFFDVLRQDOUHYLVLRQVZKLFKZLOOEHPDGHDVQHFHVVDU\ZLWKWKHDSSURYDORIWKH&RXUW
,7,66225'(5('WKLVVWGD\RI'HFHPEHU
%5,$160,//(5&+,()-8'*(
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES
IN THE COURTHOUSE
AMENDED GENERAL ORDER NO. 54
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Electronic devices are prohibited in courthouses beyond the security
checkpoint except as allowed by this General Order and Local Rule 83.2.
2. The prohibition in paragraph 1 does not apply to the possession of
electronic devices by employees and visiting employees of courthouse tenant agencies and
contractors approved by the General Services Administration.
3. Members of the public may bring into a courthouse cell phones, Blackberries
and PDA type devices that do not have the capacity to take photographs or to make films.
However, each cell phone, Blackberry or PDA type device must be turned off and put away
before a person carrying it enters into a courtroom and must remain off and remain put
away while in the courtroom.
4. Lawyers and staff employed by the Department of Justice or the Federal
Public Defender's Office may bring cell phones, laptop computers, Blackberries and PDA
type devices into courthouses whether or not those devices have the capacity to take
photographs or make films.
5. Upon request, the Court may issue an order authorizing other lawyers, their
staff or support personnel, and law enforcement officers attending a proceeding to bring
cell phones, laptop computers, Blackberries, and PDA type devices into a courthouse
1
while attending the proceeding whether or not those devices have the capacity to take
photographs or films. An order authorizing a lawyer, his/her staff or support personnel, or law
enforcement officer to bring an electronic device into a courthouse will identify the person so
authorized by name and specify the date or dates during which permission is granted. That person
must then present the order and a photo I.D. to Court Security Personnel at the security checkpoint.
A person who is allowed an electronic device into a courthouse pursuant to this paragraph, and has
subsequent court hearings within the courthouse on the same day, will be allowed to retain the
electronic device during his or her time at the courthouse.
6. Active attorneys licensed to practice in Arkansas and the Eastern District of
Arkansas may request issuance of a “Court Technology Permit” by the Clerk of Court. The permit
card will be effective for two years. The Clerk will issue the permit card to those attorneys who
make written request when paying their biennial assessment. The permit card will contain the
attorney’s name, firm, city, state and Arkansas bar number. If an attorney presents a permit card
and a photo identification upon entering the courthouse, he or she will be allowed to bring cell
phones, lap tops, Blackberries and PDA type devices into the courthouse whether or not those
devices have the capacity to take photos or make film. In the event an attorney’s permit is lost, the
attorney should notify the Clerk’s office as soon as possible.
7. A person who brings an electronic device into a courthouse pursuant to paragraphs
4, 5, and 6 above will be subject to the following rules:
(a) that person may not record, photograph, or film anyone or anything inside
the courthouse;
(b) cell phones, Blackberries or PDA type devices must be turned off and
put away when in courtrooms; and
2
(c) wireless internet components of electronic devices must be deactivated
when in district courtrooms.
The United States Marshals Service is hereby directed to enforce this General Order. A
violation of paragraph 7(a), (b), or (c) may result in seizure of the electronic device,
withdrawal of the privilege to bring an electronic device into the courthouse, or other
sanctions. A violation of the prohibition on recording, photographing, or filming anyone or
anything inside the courthouse may be punished as contempt of court.
8. Before persons with electronic devices are granted entry into the courthouse,
all devices must be examined by the United States Marshals Service or Court Security
Personnel. This examination includes, but is not limited to placing the device through
electronic screening machines and requiring the person possessing the device to turn the
power to the device off and on.
9. The United States Marshals Service may further restrict electronic devices
from entering the building should a threat assessment so dictate.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th of April, 2009.
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF IMPLEMENTATION
OF LOCAL RULE 67.1 ON DEPOSIT AND
INVESTMENT OF REGISTRY FUNDS
GENERAL ORDER NO. 55
The Court, has determined that it is necessary to adopt local procedures to ensure
uniformity in the deposit and investment of funds in the Court’s Registry.
IT IS ORDERED that the following shall govern the receipt, deposit, and investment of
registry funds:
I. Receipt of Funds.
A. No money shall be sent to the Court or its officers for deposit in the Court’s registry
without a court order signed by the presiding judge in the case or proceeding.
B. The party making the deposit or transferring funds to the Court’s registry shall
serve the order permitting the deposit or transfer on the Clerk of Court.
C. Unless provided for elsewhere in this Order, all monies ordered to be paid to the
Court or received by its officers in any case pending or adjudicated shall be
deposited with the Treasurer of the United States in the name and to the credit of
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2041 through depositories designated by the
Treasury to accept such deposit on its behalf.
II. Investment of Registry Funds.
A. Where, by order of the Court, funds on deposit with the Court are to be placed in
some form of interest-bearing account or invested in a court-approved interest-
bearing instrument in accordance with Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court Registry Investment System (ACRIS@), administered by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts under 28 U.S.C. ' 2045, shall be
the only investment mechanism authorized.
B. Interpleader funds deposited under 28 U.S.C. ' 1335 meet the IRS definition of a
ADisputed Ownership Fund@ (DOF), a taxable entity that requires tax
administration. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, interpleader funds shall be
deposited in the DOF established within the CRIS and administered by the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which shall be responsible for
meeting all DOF tax administration requirements.
C. The Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts is designated as
custodian for CRIS. The Director or the Director=s designee shall perform the duties
of custodian. Funds held in the CRIS remain subject to the control and jurisdiction
of the Court.
D. Money from each case deposited in the CRIS shall be Apooled@ together with those
on deposit with Treasury to the credit of other courts in the CRIS and used to
purchase Government Account Series securities through the Bureau of Public Debt,
which will be held at Treasury, in an account in the name and to the credit of the
Director of Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The pooled funds
will be invested in accordance with the principles of the CRIS Investment Policy
as approved by the Registry Monitoring Group.
E. An account for each case will be established in the CRIS Liquidity Fund titled in
the name of the case giving rise to the investment in the fund. Income generated
from fund investments will be distributed to each case based on the ratio each
account=s principal and earnings has to the aggregate principal and income total in
the fund after the CRIS fee has been applied. Reports showing the interest earned
and the principal amounts contributed in each case will be prepared and distributed
to each court participating in the CRIS and made available to litigants and/or their
counsel.
F. For each interpleader case, an account shall be established in the CRIS Disputed
Ownership Fund, titled in the name of the case giving rise to the deposit invested
in the fund. Income generated from the fund investments will be distributed to
each case after the DOF fee has been applied and tax withholdings have been
deducted from the fund. Reports showing the interest earned and the principal
amounts contributed in each case will be available through the FedInvest/CMS
application for each court participating in the CRIS and made available to litigants
and/or their counsel. On appointment of an administrator authorized to incur
expenses on behalf of the DOF in a case, the case DOF funds should be transferred
to another investment account as directed by court order.
III. Fees and Taxes
A. The custodian is authorized and directed by this Order to deduct the investment
services fee CRIS fee of an annualized 10 basis points on assets on deposit for all
CRIS funds, excluding the case funds held in the DOF, for the management of
investments in the CRIS. According to the Court’s Miscellaneous Fee Schedule,
the CRIS fee is assessed from interest earnings to the pool before a pro rata
distribution of earnings is made to court cases.
B. The custodian is authorized and directed by this Order to deduct the DOF fee of an
annualized 20 basis points on assets on deposit in the DOF for management of
investments and tax administration. According to the Court’s Miscellaneous Fee
Schedule, the DOF fee is assessed from interest earnings to the pool before a pro
rata distribution of earnings is made to court cases. The custodian is further
authorized and directed by this Order to withhold and pay federal taxes due on
behalf of the DOF.
This Order supersedes and abrogates all prior orders of this Court regarding the deposit
and investment of registry funds.
It is SO ORDERED this 20th day of April , 2017.
/s/ Brian S. Miller
BRIAN S. MILLER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF
ATTORNEY ADMISSIONS
AND PRO HAC VICE FEES
GENERAL ORDER NO. 56
Effective September 1, 2013, the Eastern and Western District of Arkansas will suspend
the $10 Biennial Assessment until further notice because of the adoption of new fee schedules for
Attorney Admissions and Pro Hac Vice Applications. The funding associated with these new fees
will be collected and deposited to the Library Fund. Fees deposited to the Library Fund will be
utilized in a manner consistent with Local Rule 83.6.
It is SO ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Brian S. Miller
BRIAN S. MILLER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS
iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 62019
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES W. (MQRMACK, CLERK
By:
DEP CLERK
IN RE: INTERSTATE AGREEMENT
ON DETAINERS ACT WAIVERS
GENERAL ORDER NO.58
When a federal detainer is, or is expected to be, filed for a defendant serving a
sentence in a non-federal jurisdiction for unrelated crimes, that defendant has the right to
remain in federal custody until final disposition of the federal charges. Interstate Agreement
on Detainers Act (TADA), 18 U.S.C. app. § 2 Art. IV(e). Defendants may waive their rights
under the TADA, however, by filing a valid Notice of Waiver of Rights under the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act.
If a defendant files a Notice of Waiver that is signed by the defendant, defense
counsel, and a lawyer from the U.S. Attorney's office, the U.S. Marshal is authorized to
return the defendant to the jurisdiction with original custody without further order of the
court. After returning a defendant to state or local custody, the U.S. Marshal must file a
Detainer with that custodial authority, which will constitute a hold on the defendant.
D. P. MARSHALL JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
